Unwilling to Work – Red Dirt Liberty Report

0
349

In the first draft we have seen of the “Green New Deal” this past week, it seemed that nearly everyone noticed a key phrase of the Green New Deal that really had nothing to do with the color green at all. It said that there would be a guaranteed income for those who are “either unable or unwilling to work.” That has more of a sort of red feel to it.

So, rather than a Green New Deal, we actually have a sort of communist manifesto. The draft of the GND was quickly taken down and I’m certain will be re-released without the “unwilling to work” phrase, but it’s already too late. We already know the goal is there, and they can’t take it back and hide it from us. That phrase was not there by mistake. They actually believe it. Despite any backlash from the public, the supporters of the GND will pursue an income for people whom, for whatever reason, have simply decided not to work.

We can only guess at the motives behind this desire to pay people who don’t want to work for their wages, but one could easily guess that at its root is the notion that economies and wealth are a zero-sum game. For some reason, despite all evidence to the contrary, this notion hangs on like an incurable disease. It is a misunderstanding that one person’s wealth comes at the expense of other people. It is believed that “hoarding” wealth means that it is being kept from other people having it. It represents complete ignorance that is so easily dispelled just from simple evidence that exists everywhere.

The kind of wealth that seems so distasteful to the left is of an amount that cannot simply be hidden under a mattress. One of three things happens with excess wealth. It is spent, it is saved, or it is invested. All of these possibilities contribute to the overall economy and serve to spread wealth throughout.

If someone spends their wealth, most people understand that it gives businesses larger amounts of wealth that are then either passed down to employees or are spent on capital goods – equipment, real estate, vehicles, etc. If someone saves their money, then it goes to a bank and the bank uses it to fund loans. The loans help both individuals spend their money to accumulate more wealth themselves, or go to businesses in the form of capital that again gets spent. If someone invests their money, then it serves to provide greater value into capital investments in business, industry, and the general greater wealth of everyone. It seems like such common sense.

The more wealth in and economy, regardless of who has it and how much, is always a good thing. It is not a zero-sum game. One person’s wealth does not come at the expense of others. Rather, the more wealth grows, the bigger the pie. We all get a bigger piece to enjoy.

On the converse, when we take some of the wealth and distribute it to people who are not contributing to the economy by providing the service of their labor, we begin to strip the value away from that wealth. If currency is not purchasing value, then it loses value, therefore reducing wealth for everyone. The more people who stop working in order to receive “free” money, the less that money becomes worth. The government is essentially stealing wealth from everyone all at once. The key to growing wealth is that it increases when it is used to purchase goods or services that have a value greater than the wealth being used to make those transactions. We are self motivated to create wealth through a capitalist system, where everyone’s wealth grows as a consequence of every single individual transaction – be it spending, saving, or investing.

Not only is it immoral to destroy wealth for everyone through taking it out of the economy, but it is also immoral to steal the property of one person in order to give it to another. If you rob me in a dark alley, your intent doesn’t matter. It’s still theft. It doesn’t matter if you intend to give everything you’ve stolen to the poor. Theft is always theft. When we act in violence, coercion, or through force to take wealth, it does not matter whether we do so directly or by using intermediaries (government). The result is the same – theft.

The idea that property of some should be stolen away in order to be given to people who simply desire not to contribute to an economy, is abhorrent. It should disgust anyone. It is shocking that it not only does not disgust some, but they brazenly support it and somehow even think it’s moral. Stealing other people’s wealth its immoral even when it is going to the poor and destitute. However, it seems even more immoral when it is given to those who do not even need it, but simply chose to take it.

Supporters of taking wealth from some to distribute to those unwilling to work are either ignorant or pursuing evil intent. My hope is that it becomes evident that their intentions have already been made clear when such language is removed from the Green New Deal. My hope is the everyone will know that intent remains and they should be highly skeptical of the entire plan.

The following two tabs change content below.

Danny Chabino

Danny Chabino has a background in operating small businesses. He has been involved in managing and/or owning the operations of multiple retail establishments, a sub-prime lending company, a small insurance company, a small telemarketing venture, and insurance consulting. In addition to these activities, he also has spent many years managing investments in stocks and stock options as a successful trader. He is the married parent of two adult children, living as a proud lifelong Oklahoman and a part-time redneck. Danny writes for the enjoyment and pleasure of sharing ideas and for the love of writing itself. His opinions skew libertarian, but he enjoys hearing open debate and listening to or reading of opposing ideas. As an odd confession, he personally detests politics, but enjoys writing about political ideals and philosophies.